Banner
Xtra Smileys
[Open]
We Unite Gaming
May 23, 2025, 01:32:37 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to We Unite Gaming!
Formerly Wii Unite/Wii Unite Gaming
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Youtube Channel Chatbox Staff List Login Register  

A Message to All the Homosexuals

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A Message to All the Homosexuals  (Read 6066 times)
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #195 on: November 30, 2010, 03:12:07 pm »

I am not planning on getting deeply involved here, after all, this is the flame board.  However, first, how can you say that heterosexuality is not biological when you consider procreation.  It MUST, by definition of male and female, be biological.  Anatomy is biological.  End of story.

However, you also then went on quite a bit about interpretation of the bible.  However, I believe that there is only one true interpretation of the bible.  2 Peter 1:20 states, "Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  So while people want to debate and discuss forever about what the bible means, that is all irrelevant and a waste of time.  It means what God said.

Second, there are numerous scriptures that plainly address the sin of engaging in the practice of homosexuality. 

Romans 1:24-32 says:

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

This is just one of many passages I can take you to that directly speaks of sexual relationships between the same sex.  It is a teaching throughout the bible.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: November 30, 2010, 03:30:48 pm »

Where did I state that heterosexuality wasn't biological? I merely asked you to define it. I expected you of all people to respond according to what I wrote Ohio  Tongue You failed me  Cheesy

I didn't argue what was written in the bible Ohio. I merely stated that there are probably (and I've taken a gander) a number of statements in the bible which most people would consider ludicrous and not follow in this day and age. Therefore, people have decided that some of God's word is not relevant, but how can you pick and choose? How can you choose to believe what has been said about homosexuality, but not what is said about grapes for example?

And in terms of interpretation, you, being a lawyer, can't honestly state that there is no interpretation required. We are supposed to take all statements in the bible at face value? I'm curious to hear your answer on this one.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #197 on: November 30, 2010, 05:02:29 pm »

Where did I state that heterosexuality wasn't biological? I merely asked you to define it. I expected you of all people to respond according to what I wrote Ohio  Tongue You failed me  Cheesy

I was referring to your statement when K said parents are male and female and your response to that was that that argument pointed to environment not biology.  So I did respond to what you wrote, but since I came in long after you had addressed me and the discussion had shifted by the time I got here, I decided to respond to the current discussion rather than a stale one.  You asked if there is no gene for homosexuality, then how is heterosexuality biological.  I just explained how it was.  There are many genes for male and female.  Clearly heterosexuality is in our genes.

Quote
I didn't argue what was written in the bible Ohio. I merely stated that there are probably (and I've taken a gander) a number of statements in the bible which most people would consider ludicrous and not follow in this day and age. Therefore, people have decided that some of God's word is not relevant, but how can you pick and choose? How can you choose to believe what has been said about homosexuality, but not what is said about grapes for example?

Hate to break it to you, but I believe all of the bible, in it's proper context, is still relevant today.  So I would agree with you that people who pick and choose from the bible what to follow and what not to follow are hypocrites.  So your point is lost on me.

Quote
And in terms of interpretation, you, being a lawyer, can't honestly state that there is no interpretation required. We are supposed to take all statements in the bible at face value? I'm curious to hear your answer on this one.

Ah, but I didn't say no interpretation required, but rather it isn't open to private interpretation.  That means there is only one right way to read it and all others are wrong.  It is a matter of comprehension, not interpretation.  The bible says what it means and means what it says.  I don't know why you are so curious to hear that answer.  It is so basic.  I believe every word of the bible is truth.  It is the word of God, and as such is without error.

So while you may try to use the argument that many people who claim to believe the bible but don't really in order to make a point, it will get nowhere with me.  I am not one of those people.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #198 on: November 30, 2010, 05:12:10 pm »

Quote
Quote
Exactly, the laws ARE biblical, and I'm thankful for that. Look at the perversions of men like the wacko in N. Korea and Hitler.  Do you not know what they do/did?

Laws came about long before the bible. So really, laws are about productivity....

The Bible that was abridged by King James is relatively new in the scheme of human time, yes, but the commandments that were given to Moses was the first law (and is in the Bible),  and is influential to mostly all human laws.

Quote
We are over populated, partly due to the preachings of the bible. Our species is fine.

Goodness, this is such an ignorant statement.  Most of our Earth is uninhabited.  There is plenty of room for even more people.  Just because we crowd cities so bad and end up in high rises, doesn't mean we are overpopulated.

There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet. Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot. Now, physically how big is the suburb of houses we’ve built?
So, 6,000,000,000 people; four to a house is 1.5 Billion houses.
1.5 Billion Houses on a quarter acre each is 375 Million Acres.
How big is 375 Million Acres? The state of Texas is 171904640 acres.
375 Million Acres is just over twice the size of the State of Texas
It also equates to 3.6 Californias.  Alaska at 420 Million Acres could hold them all and still have 45 million acres left over.



Quote
The laws ARE NOT biblical, but are typically based on teachings of the bible. Keep in mind that laws are not the same everywhere. Not sure what Hitler and N Korea have to do with this...

You're right, not ALL laws are biblical, but most are in nature, especially when comparing them to the commandments.  Society has developed a lot of those laws for our mutual protection in the same way the God gave us the law to protect us from...us.  I threw Hitler and Kim Jong-il in there because they force(d) their law on people and look at the results. God doesn't force law upon people as we are free to chose, but will eventually reap consequences for our choices.

Quote
This is where you are wrong. I didn't state that homosexuals needed to get married in a Church or in the eyes of God. Getting married in the eyes of the government and getting married in the eyes of God are two different things. I also didn't state that marriage is simply biblical. I stated that it has origins in the bible. Things morph over time.
Marriage isn't always Biblical, I know this as there are other cultures in the world that practice marriage and haven't even heard of the Bible.  But if you look up the origins of marriage, even marriage not consented by a Church or God, they all have something in common; that it is between a man and a woman.  the only recorded instance where it was practiced and accepted for 2 men to do so was in second and third century Roman empire and Greece orthodox churches.  So, I ask you; Why is kechua marriage not only not accepted by certain Churches, but also not accepted by other people that don't even believe in te Bible's teachings?

Quote
And the hypocrites are the ones that take pieces of the bible to follow and not all of it in my opinion. A person can't state that the bible is the word that should be followed and then not follow all of it. That is the definition of hypocritical.
I agree 100%. There is not point in reading and saying you believe the Bible and yet leave certain things out of it or ignore certain parts of it.  I read/interpret and (try to) follow the Bible line upon line, precept upon precept.

Quote
I'll state it again, reproduction and homosexual marriages are two different things. We could have homosexual marriages all over the place and still reproduce. Men and women could simply get together for the sake of reproduction. That's entirely possible and not unfathomable at all. So, I don't believe our survival is at risk at all. We are only at risk if we are too stupid to realize we need the opposite sex for reproduction. Is anyone here that stupid?
We aren't machines though, Term.  I personally couldn't imagine a world with many same sex marriages and ubers of reproduction clinics on every corner like retail shops where you stop in and hump someone who's sole purpose is to get impregnated. Besides, using your scenario, why would a homosexual (someone who has no desire to have sexual relations with the opposite sex and is often times simply grossed out by the opposite sex) want to get together just for the sake of reproduction?

Report Spam   Logged
dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #199 on: November 30, 2010, 05:40:29 pm »

Quote
The Bible that was abridged by King James is relatively new in the scheme of human time, yes, but the commandments that were given to Moses was the first law (and is in the Bible),  and is influential to mostly all human laws.

Moses was not the first to deem that killing is "wrong." Long before Moses, killing for example was counter productive to most species of animals, until we become over populated. Stealing wasn't illegal, but if you did it, you would be attacked by the person you stole from. What this means is, Moses may have written them on paper, but the bible is not the basis for human law, it's productivity.

Quote
Goodness, this is such an ignorant statement.  Most of our Earth is uninhabited.  There is plenty of room for even more people.  Just because we crowd cities so bad and end up in high rises, doesn't mean we are overpopulated.

Correction, most of the earth is uninhabitable. Many places are not living conditions deemed suitable for human life yet, people live there. Why? Because they can't go anywhere else. Don't tell me it's ignorant, when people don't get food, because they grow any where they live, or they can't afford it. It means there's too many of us and we need a pandemic, since we are long overdue.

Quote
There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet. Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot. Now, physically how big is the suburb of houses we’ve built?
So, 6,000,000,000 people; four to a house is 1.5 Billion houses.
1.5 Billion Houses on a quarter acre each is 375 Million Acres.
How big is 375 Million Acres? The state of Texas is 171904640 acres.
375 Million Acres is just over twice the size of the State of Texas
It also equates to 3.6 Californias.  Alaska at 420 Million Acres could hold them all and still have 45 million acres left over.

Now this, is what I call ignorant. If you want to live in a world of just houses, fine be me, pack all the people in the world into Alaska. Where are they going to farm, hunt, get medical treatment and what infrastructure will they use to get there? You need to rethink your calculations and the amount of habitable land we actually have.
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #200 on: November 30, 2010, 06:02:41 pm »

K, the bible wasn' "abridged" by King James.  He commissioned 30 translators to diligently translate it into English by using the "textus receptus" manuscripts.  There was no abridging at all.  It was a complete translation.

And also, the law, as given to Moses was not the first human laws either.  In fact, the first human law was given to Adam in the garden.  And all society since has had laws based on the principles of God's precepts given to man.

So while I agree with your premises, I felt the need to correct these points because DDD was running with them in a completely absurd direction.  Productivity has historically been a very minimal basis for human law.  While many laws are in place in various societies for various reasons, the ones discussed here are "moral" laws.  Moral laws are rarely, if ever, based on productivity.  And K is correct, that in most western civilizations, have based their moral laws on biblical laws and principles.  That is undeniable.

And also, DDD, I wanted to point out the inadequacies of your population arguments.  How can you possibly claim most of the earth is uninhabitable and humans only live there out of necessity?  The most remote, harsh environments on earth where humans live have been inhabited for thousands of years.  And this was back when human population was less than a few million.  There was obviously more than enough room for all the people in the more temperate regions when these harsh environments were settled.  Your argument of necessity fails because these places were inhabited prior to any need for people to move there.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #201 on: November 30, 2010, 06:08:15 pm »

Also, DDD, I think you missed K's point about land size.  His point was that 6 billion people could have a quarter acre each and all fit in an area less than the US territory.  When put in context of the entire size of inhabitable land in the world, the entire world population could multiply exponentially, and still have plenty of room for all the space and infrastructure you could need.  We are definitely not running out of space.

Further, I believe this earth was designed for human life by God and will accomplish exactly its purpose.  We will never run out of space before God is done with this planet.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #202 on: November 30, 2010, 06:12:17 pm »

Quote
Moses was not the first to deem that killing is "wrong." Long before Moses, killing for example was counter productive to most species of animals, until we become over populated. Stealing wasn't illegal, but if you did it, you would be attacked by the person you stole from. What this means is, Moses may have written them on paper, but the bible is not the basis for human law, it's productivity.
I'm going along with Term's agrgument that laws are based on man's interpretation of the Bible.  The most basic law of the Bible is the commandments, along with the two other commandments given by Jesus.  It was Term who alluded to current laws being influenced by the Bible.  Also, stop trying to use productivity as the basis for murder being wrong.  Murdering someone means that you take their life, and therefore they breathe no more.  This action also hurts loved ones of the victim, and in turn starts war.  Throwing productivity in there only backs the principle of slave ownership and that a lost slave to death means that productivity reduces.


Quote
Correction, most of the earth is uninhabitable. Many places are not living conditions deemed suitable for human life yet, people live there. Why? Because they can't go anywhere else. Don't tell me it's ignorant, when people don't get food, because they grow any where they live, or they can't afford it. It means there's too many of us and we need a pandemic, since we are long overdue.
Many, but not most. And why can they not go anywhere?  People have been migrating since the dawn of man, and for what purposes? To find sustainable life in other places.

Also, there are food shortages in the world here and there. We have plenty of food here in America but it is sometimes hard to get it to famined regions due to war and corrupt governments. (N. Korea, again) We have the food, it’s getting it there that is the problem.  We have so much abundance in the USA that some people believe that our government actually pays farmers not to plant to help keep prices higher.

 
Quote
Quote
There are currently about 6 Billion people on this planet. Lets put them, four to house on a quarter acre of land. This is the typical size of a traditional suburban lot. Now, physically how big is the suburb of houses we’ve built?
So, 6,000,000,000 people; four to a house is 1.5 Billion houses.
1.5 Billion Houses on a quarter acre each is 375 Million Acres.
How big is 375 Million Acres? The state of Texas is 171904640 acres.
375 Million Acres is just over twice the size of the State of Texas
It also equates to 3.6 Californias.  Alaska at 420 Million Acres could hold them all and still have 45 million acres left over.

Now this, is what I call ignorant. If you want to live in a world of just houses, fine be me, pack all the people in the world into Alaska. Where are they going to farm, hunt, get medical treatment and what infrastructure will they use to get there? You need to rethink your calculations and the amount of habitable land we actually have.


No, I don't want to live in a world of just houses, but don't think for one second that all of the possible habitable places in the world are already occupied by people.  My calculations are just an example to paint a picture; and that is that we still, even with our current population, have plenty of room to accomodate everyone.  

Habitable land on earth for humans: 15,641,597,556 acres
Source(s):
http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/index.html
http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/visual.php?shortname=distribution_of_climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qland2.html

Quote
In sum, only about one fourth of all the land on earth, or somewhat more than 12 million square miles, is arable.

Today, over half of the arable land in the world is in fact not under cultivation. Bringing the unused land into service in many cases would require huge investments of money and effort, and would do considerable damage to the environment. For example, only about 28% of the arable land on the African continent is used for growing crops. Immense tracts of forests or jungles would have to be cleared to bring the rest of the arable land on that continent to productive use.

Thus, only about one eighth of each imaginary plot of land distributed to each person is land which is under cultivation. In effect, each person has a piece of land about 26,000 square feet (a square 161 feet on each side or just a bit more than ½ an acre) at his or her disposal on which to grow all that he or she needs.

Report Spam   Logged
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #203 on: November 30, 2010, 06:16:48 pm »

Quote
K, the bible wasn' "abridged" by King James.  He commissioned 30 translators to diligently translate it into English by using the "textus receptus" manuscripts.  There was no abridging at all.  It was a complete translation.

Sorry, wrong use of word.  I don't know where I got abridgement from. Huh?

Quote
And also, the law, as given to Moses was not the first human laws either.  In fact, the first human law was given to Adam in the garden.  And all society since has had laws based on the principles of God's precepts given to man.
Yes, we now know that Adam was given the first law to "not partake of the tree..." because of the Bible.  I missused my statement, but merely meant that Moses was responsible for them being written down and communicated to people.  Wink
Report Spam   Logged
dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #204 on: November 30, 2010, 07:03:41 pm »

Tons to go over here.

Quote
Productivity has historically been a very minimal basis for human law.

Productivity is the basis for all law, human and non-human. To a point, the more humans we have, the more productive we are and that's why original human and non human life did not kill each other. Not because a book or a yet to be seen man in the sky told them to. 

Quote
And K is correct, that in most western civilizations, have based their moral laws on biblical laws and principles.

And where did the bible get those from? Don't say "God", because no one can prove that he exists but we can prove that humans and non humans lived successfully before the bible and before the ten commandments based on the law of safety and productivity.

Quote
How can you possibly claim most of the earth is uninhabitable and humans only live there out of necessity?  The most remote, harsh environments on earth where humans live have been inhabited for thousands of years.

Cheers to places like Africa where they can't grow any vegetation, can't get clean drinking water and rely on the rest of the world to provide for them. It means people can't live there without the aid of others.

Quote
His point was that 6 billion people could have a quarter acre each and all fit in an area less than the US territory.  When put in context of the entire size of inhabitable land in the world, the entire world population could multiply exponentially, and still have plenty of room for all the space and infrastructure you could need.

There's more to human life that just space. The world will run out of resources and we already are, a clear sign of over population.

Quote
Further, I believe this earth was designed for human life by God and will accomplish exactly its purpose.  We will never run out of space before God is done with this planet.

And this is the belief that delays technological advancements.

"It's all good, God will save us!"

"God" doesn't save us from sickness, from poverty or from War, yet you expect his all mighty ass to do something when a meteor is about to hit our planet?

Quote
  Also, stop trying to use productivity as the basis for murder being wrong.  Murdering someone means that you take their life, and therefore they breathe no more.  This action also hurts loved ones of the victim, and in turn starts war.

There is two sides to this stone. Killing a homeless man who just leaches off social programs, no problem. Killing a farmer who provides food for hundreds, that's counter productive. The counter productive are not "loved" and are shunned from society.

Quote
Also, there are food shortages in the world here and there. We have plenty of food here in America but it is sometimes hard to get it to famined regions due to war and corrupt governments.(North Korea)

So North Korea stops the US from sending food to Africa? What about the millions living in poverty in the United States? Is North Korea stopping that too?

Quote
No, I don't want to live in a world of just houses, but don't think for one second that all of the possible habitable places in the world are already occupied by people.  My calculations are just an example to paint a picture; and that is that we still, even with our current population, have plenty of room to accomodate everyone.

But we don't have the resources, the education, the infrastructure or the basic skills to do so. In a perfect world, sure, but this world is not and never will be perfect. Millions don't have access to clean drinking water, and you think we aren't over populated?

You and Ohio seem to be living in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and God will save us if things go wrong. I don't know how you can guys can trust something you have never seen but while you guys are doing that, I will try to improve the earth's productivity.
Report Spam   Logged
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #205 on: November 30, 2010, 08:24:57 pm »

Quote
Productivity is the basis for all law, human and non-human. To a point, the more humans we have, the more productive we are and that's why original human and non human life did not kill each other. Not because a book or a yet to be seen man in the sky told them to.  

Wrong, again.  

Let's use your parents as an example.  I believe you said once that they were strict in their house rules. (if not then forgive me for assuming) If this is not the case, then at least bare with me.  

They established certain rules for you all to abide by and they also provide sustination for you.  Should you chose not to follow the rules established then there are consequences.  Now, you can chose to either take that consequence and not break that rule again, or you can kill your parents and establish your own rules. (If you are old enough you can leave and also establish your own rules) But let's assume that you are living in the early times of man as an "original" human as you stated above and you can't just pack up and go get an apartment.  What do you do?   I assume that whatever the case, in the end you will either agree on rules of behavior, or you will kill or dominate your parents. Should you not kill them, then why?  Is it because of loss of productivity? I doubt not.

That is the fundamental truth of Mans' existence. There are only two ways for men to avoid and/or settle disputes: violence, and contract.


Quote
Cheers to places like Africa where they can't grow any vegetation, can't get clean drinking water and rely on the rest of the world to provide for them. It means people can't live there without the aid of others.
Has it been that way since the beginning of time? Huh? From what I understand, they were fully capable of susatining life before the rest of the world showed up.

Quote
There's more to human life that just space. The world will run out of resources and we already are, a clear sign of over population.
Care to elaborate that one? Again, we have plenty, but it doesn't always reach the places it should.

One figure provided by Soundvision.com estimates that over 41 billion pounds of food has gone to waste this year.  Household food wastes alone adds up to about $43 billion.  A study done in Arizona estimates that single household wastes about 14% of their food.

This one says that over half of all food produced worldwide is wasted: http://greenanswers.com/q/131034/recycling-waste/waste-garbage/how-much-food-gets-wasted-worldwide-every-year#ixzz16p1GMqAW
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/half-food-wasted.php

Quote
"God" doesn't save us from sickness, from poverty or from War, yet you expect his all mighty ass to do something when a meteor is about to hit our planet?

What makes you so sure that He hasn't already saved us from a destructive meteor?  Roll Eyes

Quote
The counter productive are not "loved" and are shunned from society.
In this case, you have nothing.  You don't know for sure that a homeless man is not loved.  Also, I don't shun homeless people.  Who am I to judge them, as I don't know what they've done to get themselves in that position.

Quote
So North Korea stops the US from sending food to Africa? What about the millions living in poverty in the United States? Is North Korea stopping that too?
Damn, you really ARE that ignorant aren't you? N. Korea stops any foriegn nation from sending food to N. Korea.  Also, US DOES send food to Africa.  I don't know why you think that we don't. Huh?  As far as people living in poverty here on our soil, there are programs and charities that help them as well.  Don't be so closed minded and think that the US can solve the world's proverty as well as our own.  No wonder people despise us; because we're put on some kind of pedestal and expected to work miracles and when it's just not possible, then everyone holds grudges.

Quote
You and Ohio seem to be living in a fantasy world where everything is perfect and God will save us if things go wrong. I don't know how you can guys can trust something you have never seen but while you guys are doing that, I will try to improve the earth's productivity.
Nope, I just live in the real world and make due with what I've been provided with.  You can continue to try and improve Earth's productivety by flaming every Tom, Dikc, and Harry on Wii Unite (or punch numbers as an accountant, I believe), while I continue to do my thing, go to work, raise my family, and strive for Heaven's presence. 
Report Spam   Logged
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #206 on: November 30, 2010, 08:27:55 pm »

Where did I state that heterosexuality wasn't biological? I merely asked you to define it. I expected you of all people to respond according to what I wrote Ohio  Tongue You failed me  Cheesy

I was referring to your statement when K said parents are male and female and your response to that was that that argument pointed to environment not biology.  So I did respond to what you wrote, but since I came in long after you had addressed me and the discussion had shifted by the time I got here, I decided to respond to the current discussion rather than a stale one.  You asked if there is no gene for homosexuality, then how is heterosexuality biological.  I just explained how it was.  There are many genes for male and female.  Clearly heterosexuality is in our genes.

Quote
I didn't argue what was written in the bible Ohio. I merely stated that there are probably (and I've taken a gander) a number of statements in the bible which most people would consider ludicrous and not follow in this day and age. Therefore, people have decided that some of God's word is not relevant, but how can you pick and choose? How can you choose to believe what has been said about homosexuality, but not what is said about grapes for example?

Hate to break it to you, but I believe all of the bible, in it's proper context, is still relevant today.  So I would agree with you that people who pick and choose from the bible what to follow and what not to follow are hypocrites.  So your point is lost on me.

Quote
And in terms of interpretation, you, being a lawyer, can't honestly state that there is no interpretation required. We are supposed to take all statements in the bible at face value? I'm curious to hear your answer on this one.

Ah, but I didn't say no interpretation required, but rather it isn't open to private interpretation.  That means there is only one right way to read it and all others are wrong.  It is a matter of comprehension, not interpretation.  The bible says what it means and means what it says.  I don't know why you are so curious to hear that answer.  It is so basic.  I believe every word of the bible is truth.  It is the word of God, and as such is without error.

So while you may try to use the argument that many people who claim to believe the bible but don't really in order to make a point, it will get nowhere with me.  I am not one of those people.

Ohio, this is what you stated:

interesting theory, but too bad there does not exist a homosexual gene.  you can't really call it genetic then can you?

I like how without any reason whatsoever you just dismissed a topic that to this day is still vastly researched within the scientific community.

lolwut?

The human genome has been mapped.  There does not exist a sexual orientation gene.  Where is the debate?  I simply stated a scientific fact.

If there is no sexual orientation gene, then heterosexuality does not exist in genes either. That was my point. So, you have now contradicted yourself and lost credibility in your argument. Just because there are genes for male and female does not mean there is a sexual orientation gene as you previously stated. That puts hetero and homo in the same boat.

I don't understand how you can believe the bible in it's entirety. For example:

All of Leviticus 20 basically states that people will die if they perform these "illegal" acts. Where are the dead people? Shouldn't God smite them down as soon as the act is complete? I understand there is no time limit stated, but it very clearly states death. So, if you believe every word of the bible and these people aren't being killed when they commit these sins, then doesn't that prove to you that the bible is inaccurate?

I'm sorry, but the interpretation question and response are not basic. I know you stated that it is not open to private interpretation, so where is the public interpretation? I suppose God has spoken to you directly and explained it? If not, then who interprets for you? But I'm sure you will simply state the option of God speaking to you as this can't be proven or dis-proven (is that a word??).

Sorry Kreater, I don't have time to respond to your posts right now. We'll get back it tomorrow  Afro
Report Spam   Logged

dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #207 on: November 30, 2010, 08:49:12 pm »

Quote
Should you not kill them, then why?  Is it because of loss of productivity? I doubt not.

It's because their is no gain of productivity. If there was, they would be long gone. In today's society, murder leads to prison time, which is counter productive.   

Quote
Has it been that way since the beginning of time?  From what I understand, they were fully capable of susatining life before the rest of the world showed up.

Polio, Malaria and Yellow Fever spread like wild fire before the rest of the world showed up. Is that habitable territory? No.

Quote
Care to elaborate that one? Again, we have plenty, but it doesn't always reach the places it should.

Oil and Natural gas are two non renewable resources that will be gone by the next century. It's not just food and water.

Quote
What makes you so sure that He hasn't already saved us from a destructive meteor?

The dinosaurs are extinct.

Quote
In this case, you have nothing.  You don't know for sure that a homeless man is not loved.  Also, I don't shun homeless people.  Who am I to judge them, as I don't know what they've done to get themselves in that position.

If a man is homeless, no one loves him, other than maybe another homeless man. If he was loved, he wouldn't be in the streets. Even though I believe love is a trick our mind plays on us, I will pretend it exists for arguments sake.

Quote
Damn, you really ARE that ignorant aren't you? N. Korea stops any foriegn nation from sending food to N. Korea.  Also, US DOES send food to Africa.  I don't know why you think that we don't.

North Korea doesn't matter at this point, they chose to be counter productive and that's their fault.

Quote
As far as people living in poverty here on our soil, there are programs and charities that help them as well

Yet not everyone gets enough.

Quote
Don't be so closed minded and think that the US can solve the world's proverty as well as our own.  No wonder people despise us; because we're put on some kind of pedestal and expected to work miracles and when it's just not possible, then everyone holds grudges.

We despise the US for the lack of help you provide for other countries. Americans feel like they help everyone, when they do more harm then good. You guys trashed the middle east and left it in ruins, thinking you actually made it better.

Footnote: You = the American Government

Quote
Nope, I just live in the real world and make due with what I've been provided with.  You can continue to try and improve Earth's productivety by flaming every Tom, Dikc, and Harry on Wii Unite (or punch numbers as an accountant, I believe), while I continue to do my thing, go to work, raise my family, and strive for Heaven's presence.

Or, you can realize that heaven is a made up thing to make people act in a "nice" manner, just like Santa Claus and realize that being "nice" or "morally correct" isn't the efficient thing to do.
Report Spam   Logged
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #208 on: November 30, 2010, 08:49:33 pm »


All of Leviticus 20 basically states that people will die if they perform these "illegal" acts. Where are the dead people? Shouldn't God smite them down as soon as the act is complete? I understand there is no time limit stated, but it very clearly states death. So, if you believe every word of the bible and these people aren't being killed when they commit these sins, then doesn't that prove to you that the bible is inaccurate?

I'm sorry, but the interpretation question and response are not basic. I know you stated that it is not open to private interpretation, so where is the public interpretation? I suppose God has spoken to you directly and explained it? If not, then who interprets for you? But I'm sure you will simply state the option of God speaking to you as this can't be proven or dis-proven (is that a word??).

Sorry Kreater, I don't have time to respond to your posts right now. We'll get back it tomorrow  Afro
Yes, He does say that they are to be put to death.  But if either the fact of their sin could not be proved or the magistrates did not do their duty, God would take the work into his own hands: "I will cut him off, v. 3."  Just take note that (I believe) those that escape punishment from men, yet shall not escape the righteous judgments of God eventually; Some people unfortunately deceive themselves and promise themselves exemption of the punishment of sin. To them I ask, how can they escape God's wrath and judgment?
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #209 on: December 01, 2010, 08:06:56 am »

Actually Term, I said there is no gene for sexual orientation.  Then had you even bothered to read my later posts, I went on to explain how genetic and biological are two different things.  Here, I am now saying heterosexuality is biological.  Nowhere did I say it was genetic.  I have NOT contradicted myself, nor lost credibility.  If anyone lost credibility here it is you for your lack of reading comprehension and your misunderstanding the difference between genetic and biological (although DDD has lost a lot of credibility as well for holding to the ignorant notion that all human law is based on productivity).
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
© 2008-2014 We Unite Gaming, Wii Unite Gaming, Wii Unite
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy